The thing about parataxis is it’s not reversible (realised by sequence), whereas hypotaxis is reversible (realised by status). So these two aren’t equivalent...My friend John, ≠ John, my friend
Funnily enough I was thinking of another line from the same tea partythey cried out when they saw Alice coming...which is hypotactic and reversible (though not logically symmetrical). In contrast,they saw Alice coming and then they cried out...is paratactic and not reversible (which is what I meant).
Blogger Comments:
[1] This misunderstands the distinction between parataxis and hypotaxis. Because parataxis is symmetrical, my friend, John does imply John, my friend. Halliday & Matthiessen (2014: 452):
Parataxis is the linking of elements of equal status…. Both the initiating and the continuing elements are free, in the sense that each could stand as a functioning whole. In principle, the paratactic relation is logically (i) symmetrical and (ii) transitive. This can be exemplified with the ‘and’ relation. (i) ‘salt and pepper’ implies ‘pepper and salt’, so the relationship is symmetrical; (ii) ‘salt and pepper’, ‘pepper and mustard’ together imply ‘salt and mustard’, so the relationship is transitive.
Hypotaxis is the binding of elements of unequal status… . The dominant element is free, but the dependent element is not. The hypotactic relation is logically (i) non-symmetrical and (ii) non-transitive. For example, ‘whe n’: (i) ‘I breathe when I sleep’ does not imply ‘I sleep when I breathe’; (ii) ‘I fret when I have to drive slowly’ and ‘I have to drive slowly when it’s been raining’ together do not imply ‘I fret when it’s been raining’.
[2] To be clear, in terms of parataxis, they saw Alice coming and they cried out imply they cried out and they saw Alice coming. It is the introduction of the logico-semantic relation of time (then) that backgrounds this paratactic symmetry.
[3] To be clear, this cannot be what Rose originally meant, since there was no temporal relation in his original example of parataxis my friend, John.